[dfu-util] New dfu-suffix manipulation tool
lists.tormod at gmail.com
Tue Mar 27 21:04:23 CEST 2012
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> I got a reply from Leaflabs and they were going to test things. But
>> since then I haven't heard anything. At the minimum I would like a
>> confirmation from them on which USB ID's need to be quirked.
> I'm not in a rush with 0.6 here. Still waiting for an unknown time
> might also not really help the issue. :)
Yeah, I have pinged them again.
> Indeed, the plan was picking things piece by piece and keeping the
> current state without regressions. My time schedule might get tight
> again in the next weeks to months (I'm relocating into another
> country) but I still plan to work on this. Once I have split some
> things out into smaller changes I will push them to a branch and let
> you know for review.
Good luck with moving!
>> >> It could even be an idea to use the same syntax as the -d option of dfu-util.
> I dislike this syntax of squeezing both vendor and product IDs into
> one string. Here it would be even a third ID with the device ID. I
> prefer to keep them separate here.
No, you must like vid:pid :) everybody is using it :) But keeping it
separate is totally fine here.
>> > The term firmware is used in the specs, but I find it long to write
>> > and fw not meaningful enough as abbreviation. Other then that I only
>> > can think of dfu_fw or dfu_file also for the variable name. Any good
>> > idea?
>> I think "firmware" is a bit better than "file". Even if the part of
>> the file that we manipulate is the part that is not the actual
>> firmware :) It is really a "dfu_file" but we use that for the struct
>> so it would also be confusing.
> Hmm, firmware is still bothering. Not much better then file imho to
> just change it everywhere.
Yes, just leave it as it is for now.
>> > I did all changes based on your review in one commit:
>> > http://cgit.openezx.org/dfu-util/commit/?h=dfu-suffix
>> I think you should rebase/squash the commits there before you pull
>> this into master.
> Sure, that was the plan. Are you happy with the changes as is? If yes
> I will push them into master after squashing and rebasing. The change
> for the ID format will go in before obviously.
Please let us test from the rebased branch for a bit. Otherwise I
think everything looks fine, but I haven't tested it.
More information about the devel